Sayed Shahjada Hussain @ Babu vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Sayed Shahjada Hussain @ Babu, sought bail in Mankachar P.S. Case No. 152/2023, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The case stemmed from the recovery of prohibited psychotropic substances, specifically SPSPHEN+ and SPASCORE VON Plus capsules, weighing a total of 216.06 grams, from a vehicle. The petitioner claimed false implication, asserting he possessed valid documents for the drugs, including a drug license and GST invoice, and had been in judicial custody since July 17, 2024. He also noted that co-accused had been granted bail and that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession.

Held

The Court held that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the instant case. It was an admitted fact that no contraband item was recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioner. The petitioner's name emerged as the alleged intended recipient of the contraband. Crucially, the Court found no material in the case diary or record to suggest that the petitioner had knowledge of the illegal nature of the seized contraband items. Considering these factors, along with the length of the petitioner's detention, the Court was inclined to grant bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including not leaving the territorial jurisdiction without permission and not inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 152/2023 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, considering the alleged recovery of psychotropic substances and the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, possessing valid documents for the drugs, including a drug license and GST invoice. He argued that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that co-accused had already been granted bail. He emphasized his prolonged detention since July 17, 2024. Revenue's arguments: The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, pointed to two seizure lists. One dated April 12, 2023, did not specify the source of recovery, while another dated March 28, 2023, indicated recovery from an abandoned Bolero vehicle. The State noted that while a charge sheet had been submitted, charges had not yet been framed, and therefore, opposed the grant of bail at this stage.